Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

So characters in your game are aware of classes, levels, attribute scores, skills, and other game constructs that are clearly visible to the player and used to make changes in the game?

Classes: Characters in the game world can be familiar with classes as a player is with members of professions such as doctor, firefighter, etc.

Levels: With the numbers, not so much. With the realization that some people are more skilled/badass than others, yes.

Attribute Scores: Again, not so much the precise numbers but the perceptible effects of those numbers, sure.

Skills: Are you serious?

 

[maddman75]

Classes: Characters in the game world can be familiar with classes as a player is with members of professions such as doctor, firefighter, etc.

Levels: With the numbers, not so much. With the realization that some people are more skilled/badass than others, yes.

Attribute Scores: Again, not so much the precise numbers but the perceptible effects of those numbers, sure.

Skills: Are you serious?

Yes. How many ranks do you have in 'internet posting'? Real life does not work like this. All of these things - levels, skills, scores, are abstractions to allow the game to happen. The metagame points aren't really any different.

A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.

You're continuting to miss the point. I'm not trying to argue that as legitimate terminology, I'm not going to defend it. I'm trying to get you to see how your terminology feels to those of use whose games you deem not real roleplaying games.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. How many ranks do you have in 'internet posting'? Real life does not work like this. All of these things - levels, skills, scores, are abstractions to allow the game to happen. The metagame points aren't really any different.



You're continuting to miss the point. I'm not trying to argue that as legitimate terminology, I'm not going to defend it. I'm trying to get you to see how your terminology feels to those of use whose games you deem not real roleplaying games.

Well apparently I have max ranks in Irritate other without having to practice much.

 

[Obryn]

It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.

When it's clear that you're being insulting, and yet don't change your methodology or terminology to stop being insulting, I no longer believe it's not your intent to insult.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

When it's clear that you're being insulting, and yet don't change your methodology or terminology to stop being insulting, I no longer believe it's not your intent to insult.

-O

Clear that I'm being insulting or clear that others are taking offense at my opinion and that I should change it because of that?

 

[Obryn]

There's no difference between the two in this case.

For the sake of having a conversation, (which you insist you want to do despite all evidence to the contrary) is there a practical difference? If your taxonomy is, in and of itself, controversial, shouldn't you be willing to look for different terminology if you want to engage in a discussion?

Simply put, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's no difference between the two in this case.

For the sake of having a conversation, (which you insist you want to do despite all evidence to the contrary) is there a practical difference? If your taxonomy is, in and of itself, controversial, shouldn't you be willing to look for different terminology if you want to engage in a discussion?

Simply put, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.

-O

Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.

My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.

 

[tyrlaan]

Then feel free to stop reading the thread.

You could instead feel free to address the post you dismissed with this comment.

If this is so important to you, explaining it shouldn't be that difficult. And asking for said explanation is quite a reasonable request.

 

[Obryn]

Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.

My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.

Who's asking you to change your opinion? I'm not.

I'm asking you to use other, less-controversial terminology to facilitate discussion on a topic you're purportedly interested in. I think there are convincing and reasonable arguments against using the term "role-playing game" in an unconventional manner to describe only a small subset of games which have been called role-playing games for over a decade. You don't have to agree - just accept that the argument exists and take steps to move forward past that sticking point.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

W's primary criteria for separating Story Telling Games from Role Playing Games has boiled down to editorial control over the setting. Thus Story Telling Games has become, in this thread at least, synonymous with player editorial control.

Let's introduce some new terms to hopefully keep things clear, then.

Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds.

Shared worlds are not incompatible with storytelling, nor do they really require it. Second Life is a shared world that has no inherent story. Players can make their avatar, but can also construct buildings and make items and code their own terrain and all sorts of things.

Shared worlds are also not incompatible with roleplaying, nor do they require it. Again, a good example is Second Life: some people create avatars that are themselves (at least to a certain degree), others create avatars that are particular characters.

Hooray, confusion drastically reduced!

Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?

Just because a player defines things outside of their character does not mean that they are not also playing their character.

If I make up my character's family, and use that as a reason for going on adventures, I'm still playing the role of my character, I've just now engaged in building a shared world as well.

Most RPGs that use the concept of a shared world remain RPG's, because the players still play a role in the game.

Not everything with a shared world is also an RPG. Not every RPG lacks elements of a shared world.

Most games of D&D are not greatly shared world games, but the DM can certainly add shared world elements to both reduce their load, to give players a bigger investment into the game, or just to see what comes up. This can be as mild as "give me a family member" or as significant as "You tell me about all of the Eladrin in the world!"

Weirdly enough, the stuff in the DMGII that has preivewed has very little to do with a "shared world" and is more about pacing, framing, presenting, and other narrative elements. It's not about what players control, it's about treating the players as an audience distinct from their characters.

This certainly doesn't make the game "not an RPG," however.